CdnFox

No you can't partition something that doesn't exist. Which means what they partitioned was something else other than what you're referring to. And at the end of the day had the Palestinians respected the partitions rather than trying to slaughter all Jews they would have the original territories and probably a very prosperous relationship with Israel. They had the choice of living in Partnership They chose otherwise and paid a price. Again Israel reached out and gave them the opportunity to choose peace, again that was refused. So the world took a region, partitioned it and gave legitimacy to both parties and one of them squandered it through violence and bad decisions. I can wish that they chose something different but in the end they didn't and this is the result

Hoping to distract the conversation. This sounds like your insecurities flaring up Have before and posted the new ones directly above your last message or so So why do you keep insisting that I haven't when you can literally see me having done so on the same page you're applying to? More of your mental health issues. Let's run that one through the AI. What does it think of someone who denies evidence already presented to them? what does it mean when a person repetatively demands information that's already been given to them on a forum - Google Search When a person repetitively demands information that has already been provided, it is often a tactic known as sealioning. They disguise their behavior as a sincere quest for information, but they actually intend to exhaust, frustrate, or troll you by making you do all the labor. [1, 2] This behavior generally stems from one of four main motivations: Trolling or Bad Faith: They are not looking to learn; they just want to argue or force you into a loop so they can dominate the conversation. Searching for Validation: They might secretly disagree with the facts and keep asking, hoping that someone eventually gives them an answer that aligns with their personal opinion. Selective Reading: They are only skimming the thread, missing context, or relying on cognitive biases that prevent them from absorbing answers they don't like. Compulsive Behavior: In some cases, it can be a form of compulsive reassurance-seeking, where the person struggles with anxiety and continuously demands confirmation to feel a false sense of certainty. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] Well that does seem to suit you to a tee God you're a mess.

So you can't invade something and never existed. That should have been obvious Yes it was. But now there is. But there's still no state of Palestine.

LOL - stay classy Herbie

Ohhh dear.... sounds like you're having an emotional hissy fit again. That's pretty common with you. Lets look that up. Regularly throwing "emotional hissy fits" (or flaming) on online forums is generally a reflection of poor emotional regulation, a lack of healthy coping mechanisms, and an over-reliance on digital spaces for ego validation. [1, 2] Specific psychological and behavioral traits often drive this pattern: The Online Disinhibition Effect: Without physical, face-to-face cues or the immediate fear of real-world consequences, people lose their natural filters. The digital shield makes it incredibly easy to lash out in ways they never would in person. Low Frustration Tolerance: These individuals often struggle to process minor annoyances or contradictory opinions constructively. They view challenges to their worldview as personal attacks and interpret their immediate negative feelings as an objective "truth" that justifies an explosive reaction. Maladaptive Venting: People who regularly rant on the internet mistakenly believe it provides a healthy, cathartic release. Psychological research shows the opposite: digital venting actually reinforces anger and makes users more likely to engage in ongoing, aggressive behavior. Attention-Seeking: For some, negative attention feels preferable to being ignored. A hostile argument or a thread full of people reacting to their outrage establishes a form of connection and power they may lack in their offline lives. Entitlement and Ego: They may feel a strong need to always be "right". When an argument proves them wrong or challenges their perspective, they react with hostility to protect their ego and avoid the shame of accountability. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] For further reading on the behavioral science behind digital aggression, check out Psychology Today Canada or Harvard Health for in-depth insights into managing or navigating online rage. Hmm. Always feels the need to be right. Maladaptive. Entitlement. Maybe you should read psychology today more?

I've shared it and the link many times As you well know. Your obsession with my post count is easily a mental health issue Compulsive habit maybe. I'd say there's some truth to that, i'm always popping in to see what you losers are up to now It's an "addiciton" like watching your favorite tv show and wanting to see what the next episode will bring That's pretty harmless tho. You on the other hand, as i've noted MANY times, exhibit serious mental health issues according to the same AI's But lets look at a few more You never show up to participate, you just show up to attack people. A person who exclusively targets others with personal attacks on a single forum is typically driven by a mix of anonymity, a sense of powerlessness in their real life, and a specific fixation on the community in question. These individuals often fall into several psychological and behavioral categories: The Frustrated Gatekeeper: Often an older or highly "invested" member of a niche community, this person feels entitled to dictate who belongs. They use hostility to "police" the forum and drive away newcomers or differing viewpoints. The "Keyboard Warrior": Protected by a screen name, this person acts out aggressively in ways they never would in person. They lack empathy for the human on the receiving end and derive a sense of thrill or self-importance from the conflict. The Displaced Aggression / Lonely User: Many online trolls or bullies struggle with real-life insecurity, loneliness, or unhappiness. They use personal attacks as a way to vent frustration, seeking a brief sense of control or validation by dragging others down. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] Oh dear. And lets try your post count question another way: what does obsessing about another user's post count on a forum say about someonee - Google Search Obsessing over another user’s post count usually stems from insecurity, a desire to gatekeep community status, or the use of ad hominem tactics in an argument. Rather than reflecting on the user's actual behavior, it often highlights the observer's own need for control, validation, or social comparison online. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Specific behavioral and psychological reasons for this fixation include: 1. The Ad Hominem Fallacy When an argument gets heated, users often search profiles to find "dirt" or irrelevant metrics. By attacking a post count—labeling someone as "obsessed with the internet" or a "newbie"—the observer tries to invalidate the user’s arguments without having to address the actual topic. [1, 2] 2. Status Anxiety and Gatekeeping Traditional forums historically relied on post counts (or forum titles like "Senior Member") to denote rank or community seniority. Someone obsessing over these numbers may be: [1, 2] Suspicious of newcomers: They view low post counts as a red flag for spam or bots. Resentful of high counts: They might view massive post counts as a sign of someone being "too online" or lacking real-world experience. [1, 2, 3, 4] 3. Projecting Insecurity In many cases, the obsession is a projection of a person's own social anxieties. People who feel they don't matter or lack influence in the community may obsess over numbers as a way to quantify worth, judging both themselves and others strictly by algorithmic or profile-based metrics. [1, 2, 3] 4. Curiosity and Context-Seeking Not all observation is malicious. Some forum users check post counts simply to understand who they are talking to. If a user is giving advice or making controversial statements, checking their history is a common way to gauge their expertise, establish a baseline of their typical behavior, or verify that they are a genuine member of the community Do you notice a pattern? When i input your behavior, no matter how i phrase it or which behavior of yours i specify it tends to come back with the same general mental health issues. Severe insecurity Hyper fixation. Envy. That's what you're coping with Sure i'm slightly addicted to watching you make an ass of yourself, it's hilarious! But you're a broken little man with serious issues We are not the same.

He's been very vocal, he says Aberta belongs in Canada. Uhhhh.... yeah so Oklahoma is in the us. They don't have mp's, and if they did they wouldn't be involved in canada's politics. Sigh. Why is it the right is always having to explain the basics to the left? And also non existent. Many mp's have spoken out that they want to see Alberta stay in confederation and that a pipeline would help with that so they hope carney is serious about building one and isn't just screwing around. (spoiler alert: He's probably just screwing around) So as you can see, when you base your entire argument in position on lies as you have chosen to do, you frequently wind up looking like a complete twat when somebody shows up with the truth

You already proved nicely you have no idea what science is (other than what google can teach you in 2 minutes). And you also have shown you're unable to produce any actual science on the subect. But we all appreciate you showing up, it's nice to start the week with a laugh

Why not? I own my house (not even an apartment or townhome) and my mom complains constantly i don't visit her enough Let me guess, you've been sitting in your bed at night obsessing about me again and having weird fantasies about me living in a basement, right? LOLOL God kid, youj're a mess . Why not? After watching you and the others on Team Bozo i've become an expert in observing others mental health issues especially with you and my post count. Here's a sample that AI came up with about you: Insecurity and Envy: Tracking a user's frequency or high volume of posts is often a projection of the observer's own lack of self-esteem. They may feel threatened by the other person's visibility or assume the frequent poster is desperate for attention. Hyper-fixation: Obsessively checking exact numbers can be tied to compulsive traits or arithmomania. It indicates an inability to disconnect from digital noise, often acting as a coping mechanism to avoid confronting issues in their immediate, offline life.

In other words you know I'm right and you can't refute it so now your big mad and crying and want it to be my fault Sigh. We were talking about Canada, I know how much Carney loves trump and keeps praising him when they're together in public but the countries are two different entities. But if you want to talk about your worship in the states I'm sorry but Obama was worshiped as much or more than trump was Again, talking about Canada here. So obviously you realize I'm correct and you're desperately trying to make this about America instead of Canada. Nobody mentioned America other than you. And in the states the democrats are vastly more cult-like and their leaders tend to be the object of hero worship much more than the republicans. Although trump is definitely getting close to democrat status in that respect But in Canada everything I said is true and obviously you know it which is why you wanted to start talking about America

There's plenty of others. Take your pick. Like I said one guy got banned over it because everybody knew what he was saying. And democrats around the world cheered like crazy as well. here's some democrats singing about killing charlie and talking about who's next (62) The other side of America on Charlie Kirk being killed - YouTube You got burned by your own bullshit kiddo and now you're big mad because it turned out i was telling the truth. Kid... you should have learned by now. I don't open my mouth unless i know i'm right.

Actually I do. Which is why I'm calling you on your bullshit. Like I said, Kathy tried the same stick you did. It's easy to blow off that kind of thing by pretending it's a joke. But when you're a joke is reliant on the idea that the president should be dead then you have walked over the line into an area where you are advocating or normalizing the death of the president and not through natural means. You're a 100% complete hypocritical twat. he crossed the line he shouldn't have crossed and democrats like you once again rise up to defend the idea of calling for the death of the president because you don't like him

The nato charter huh. Doesn't look like the US is buying it either Canada military board: U.S. hitting pause WASHINGTON -- The U.S. undersecretary of defence said Monday that the United States is pausing a long-standing military board, claiming “Canada has failed to make credible progress on its defense commitments.” At the end of the day it doesn't matter what the NATO agreement says, or whether we're allowed to count tactical Chipmunks or not, is the money isn't going to actually improve the military it's meaningless. Yeah, and we make some of the best lavs in the world. The Americans model their strikers after ours. But we gave the ones we were making to the Ukraine and never replaced them so now our people have none but we can claim that we met our commitments for NATO spending and Ukraine. Meanwhile our combat troops are dependent on uber. This is what I'm talking about. We need to force the politicians to agree with us, not NATO, as to what represents a reasonable amount of military spending and hold them to it. As it is each government realizes that they're only in power for 4 years so all they have to do is make announcements that won't take effect for 4 - 8 years and they'll never have to worry about it. Not a single person is holding the Liberals to account for their years of mismanagement, carney is a 'new' gov't and he's doing the same crap but he's making a better show of it. Yeah it's frikkin' terrible. I get that. I've got a cousin in the military (career) and i hear stories. It's bad. And carney just gave them a raise,,,, then cancelled the foreign deployment bonus. So. The guys closest to harms way just got a massive pay cut. Canadian military personnel face cuts in overseas allowances | Ottawa Citizen for those who don't know what we're talking about. Canadians believe Carney when he says they're massively increasing spending. They believe you guys went from 1.6% of GDP all the way up to a full five and will soon be rolling in new tanks and submarines and planes etc. They have no idea of the shell game that's gone on Even the headlines like the ones above. When carney announces new military spending the headline is always liberals increase spending or Carney hits 5% spending target, But the headlines for the negative stuff never actually include mention of the government or Carney. Notice the headline above does not say that the government cut spending. And people often don't read the story they just skimmed the headlines. If we believe the news carney is personally pouring over pamphlets for new submarines and is just about to click place your order on the Amazon version of military hardware to upgrade all our gear. They have no idea that most of the money is going to things that we wouldn't normally consider to be military and that most of these purchases aren't happening or will happen in decades. I'm very frustrated, I'm sure you are too. I know exactly what's happening and I know why it's working. A significant portion of Canadians, not all but enough to keep the liberals in power, will believe any lie they are told and don't look past the announcements. Military spending will go up but only by a very small amount and I doubt we'll be seeing any substantial new gear anytime during this current administration. Even the stuff we make here

I Get what you're saying and don't disagree but the whole conversation is meaningless unless we reach a real world agreement on what is or isn't "military spending". I mean i'm sure we can agree rolling the truduea era tree planting expenditure into our 'military spending' did absolutely nothing to replace any old equipment or make our guys more ready for a conflict. And while the coast guard thing might make sense again, it did nothing whatsoever to actually increase actual "Military spending" in a way most people would define it: buying guns and bullets so to speak IF the vast majority is going to pave roads, plant trees, upgrade civilian infrastructure and such as has been the case then we might well be as bad off or WORSE than we were in a few years. And i did warn you about this, you're not getting what you think you're getting with '5 percent increased military spending"

Has only taken you 50 pages of nonsense to admit you were wrong... that's a personal best for you The vast majority of the world's people are secular humanits who advocate for morality, reason and social justice. Some believe in a theorcracy but most believe in the separation of church and state. The difference is what the definitions of those words mean to some people. YOU think it's "social justice" for a group to rape and kill and then rape again children. You feel that's socially justifiable I on the other hand feel the exact opposite, that it's social justice to protect the world from that happening again by following those people back to their homes and burning them off the face of the earth But we would both likely say our beliefs are social justice.

He did. ANd if he were alive today he'd blame the palestinians for what they've done Sorry kid. You only mention einstein because you know people think you're stupid and you're hoping his name will make you sound smarter, it doesn't.

Considering you supported a guy who had complete dementia, this comes as no shock

Man,. why are you always so fixated on @Nationalist's bupkis? It's like you dream about his bupkis, It's always "His bupkis is soooo full and i get so excited talking about his bupkis! I think about my zucchini and his bupkis all the time, like 24/7!" Yikes. Honestly if i were him, i'd be a little flattered but very disturbed.

Says the guy who STILL can't produce the science.

This isn't an issue of humor. It's not hard to make a threat look like a joke. If someone says "the only good jew is a dead jew and doesn't the world need more good jews? hahaha" they can pass it off as a joke, but the fact is it's not. You can't call for the death of a president and then pass it off as a joke I mean it's been tried before. Kathy griffin held up his severed bloody head and tried to pass it off as humor because she's a comedian. Or was. And people like you tried to defend her as well. It's not okay to suggest that the president of the united states should be killed whether it's in the form of a joke or not You are a disgusting pile of shit who revels in the idea of the deaths of people you don't like. That's literally what you are

Doesn't really help much, it's too general and doesn't let you do advance searches. But here's a few quickies i ran across, "Isn’t this the 2nd Amendment remedies conservatives have talked about?" Boges actually got banned for his comments suggesting Charile deserved to get shot, Some other snippets: No one deserves to get murdered, Well maybe Donald Trump does I think Nationalist coined the term "You git what you pay for" or something. That's my sentiment here. And on it goes, with several suggesting he 'deserved' it because he said things they didn't approve of So you could have looked that up yourself. Looks like the lies and laziness is all about you kid LOLOLOL

How many million times on this site and others did we ask to see the actual science. And not once could ANY of these freaks could produce a SINGLE DROP of actual science. It was always "well here's a webpage that says the science exists somewhere and it says it's really bad honest! So you don't need to see the science". Well now we know why they didn't want us to see it. Well, go ahead then . Show us the 'real' science. Show us the actual original works that prove that a) climate change is a crisis and b) that anything we can do about it would make a substantial difference. I'll wait.

Einstein thought israel was great and the only reason you bring him up is you're hoping his "smarts" will cover your stupid. The guy was no expert on politics.

Or an honest person. I realize they seem like the same thing to you He was happy about a Jewish homeland. He figured it would work out well enough. You only mention it cuz you realize you look stupid and are trying to shoehorn somebody who's smart and just supporting your agenda when it's just not the case And you figure what they got would work just fine. That's simple And like I said, einstein wasn't known for his political insight so the only reason you're bringing him up is because you know everyone thinks of you is stupid and you're desperately trying to pretend that somebody smart shares your views. But he didn't

No, that's pretty much a lie. You're taking something he said and twisting it out of context And the only reason you bring it up is because everybody thinks you're stupid. So you're hoping by quoting somebody like Einstein you can seem less stupid and still make your point. That only works if his point was the same as yours and it wasn't. I'm the hole he thought israel was on the right track, he was very happy to see a Jewish homeland, and he thought they would do well. After the most part they have Nope. Nope. Nope. He didn't even think it was a catastrophe You having said a lie before does not make the lie suddenly true now. The Jews aren't the problem. Israel isn't the problem. Britain isn't the problem. Canada isn't the problem. The Palestinians are the problem and always have been and they are currently getting the crap kicked out of them because they constantly insist on fafo as a way of life.